The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-11-18
the prayer for an Injunction.

Df court OF chancery IN the supervision
aud control OF unincorporated societies or
associations aud partnerships The extent
to which the court may go in the exercise
OF this power is clearly set forth In Henry
ct al VS.. DIETRICH ct al 8 Norris $50 ct seq.
The power the supervise and control does not |
authorize to court to giue rights where none |
existed before. They may restrain mai
ority from depriving minority Of its
rights, and may otherwise control in mat
ters of dispute In respect to the rights and
privileges Of members Of religious associa-
tions, consistently with the Law s OF the Or
ganization and the articles of association.
by user or otherwise excluded from being
held In the church building, the Court has
no power TO decree against the consent Of
one branch of the association that they
may be SO held. We may prevent wrongs
but we cannot confer rights.
We cannot decree as recommended by
the master, that henceforth the building
may be used alternately for Sunday schools
for the reason before stated, that accord
ing to the bond Of union between these
two. churches, as construed by themselves
such use Is not one Of the privileges pro-
vided for. BY consent it may be SO used,
but we cannot decree that consent shall
be given. We think these churches would
do well to adopt by agreement what the
master on this subject recommends. We
decline, however, to so decree. on the
ground that we have not jurisdiction to
grant privileges which did not before
legally exist
In respect to the application for an order
of sale Of the church building and ground
| upon which it stands, we decline to make
the order, not being satisfied that we have
power to do so. The tenancy by which
the title 10 this property is held is peculiar;
1t is not tenancy in common. An action
OF partition cannot be maintained by either
| party. The two bodies are held together
| by their own contract. They have agreed
that the property shall be used in a partic-
ular way, and neither body has the power
to divert IL from the purpose intended.
Nevertheless l am of opinion that the title
OF one of these congregations may be con-
veyed to the other. In the title deed there
is no condition upon which the property is
to be held. The designation of the use for
which the land is granted does not limit
the estate. There being no clause of entry
for misuse or condition broken, the grantor
has no further interest, present or contin-
gent. The grantees then having full title
may, if they so agree, convey perfect title
from one to the other and to q stranger,
not diverting the proceeds to different
purpose from that originally intended, to-
wit; the procuring OF a house OF worship
by these congregations jointly or severally.
specific performance of any contract Of
sale heretofore alleged to have been made
by offer and acceptance, and we decide
nothing 10 respect to that, but deem it moi
improper to say, that in our opinion, object
ions to the compromise proposed to bt
made, coming from minority Of ethel
congregation ought not to be allowed tC
defeat a measure which would end the
difficulties between these churches. lr
secular matters affecting the property Of {
church the majority have right to act
and the minority must submit. Under tn,
facts in this case ] have no doubt tina
these churches can, il they WILL compro
mise their difficulties and il need be, make
a sale Of their property, other than tn,
burial ground, to a stranger or from one t
the other making perfect title.
In case of failure to agree to make neces
sary repairs or otherwise to keep up tn
property according to the letter and spiri
OF the compact or to consent to a sale, ther
should be some remedy for the party de
sirous, and willing and Offering to do it
} part in that respect 1t has never been hel,
that the power of control and supervision
: OF unincorporated associations extend Ia
or authorize the Courts to order sale O
: the property in respect TO which dispute ha
arisen. There haye been many such case
within few years past, but in none @
7 them has sale been ordered to end dis
E putes.
, l conclude that the reason why this ha
not been done is, because of the doubt a
q to the jurisdiction of the Court. That the
, ought to have the power is illustrated
this case; both parties neglect their dut
o in regard to repairs, and in all respect
4 there appears to be such general disagree,
y ment, as to make it very desirable this
their joint interest in the church buildin
should be severed.
| A sale of the property with doubt a
to the power of the Court to order /
: would undoubtedly be to sacrifice th
property as neither strangers nor one
u the churches would be willing to bid muC
for what might be deemed doubtful It'll,
n or at the least one which would probabl
! be the subject of litigation.
Jurisdiction to order sale in such cast
; shouldsoe expressly given by the Lei gisla
y ture. In the absence OF statute to that etfec
: and OF any precedent for 8 doing, thi,
! it would be bold measure to be inaugl
: rated by subordinate Court.
In order to give to the plaintiffs an o.
{ portunity OF review place my refusal I
l make the order as requested solely on II
ground of want OF power
Holding these views we cannot consis
emily impose costs on the defendants.
u II, as the master held and the Court hs
u concurIed, the defendants were guilty of I
wrong in closing the doors of the churt
when they did. If the plaintiffs hay
> hitherto enjoyed all the privileges they al
u entitled to, the proceeding by injunotio
was groundess. And it, as we hold, th
u Court has no jurisdiction to decree a sal,
q the defendants are not in fault in resistir
y an order that sale be made. Not being
u either OF these respects IN fault, we cam
&c properly impose costs upon the defendant
% nor can we upon any principle governir
Courts in such cases, charge them wi
; costs because they object to Sunday schoc
being held on their day for preaching, n
because they did not carry out the sale
u offered and accepted, because In the OF
% matter they violated no law or legal righ
10 and the other was apparently in cons
s' quence of objections and threats by lar
!, minority OF the plaintiff church, All e
u ceptions 10 the finding OF facts by the ma
le | ter are oyerruled His commissions of la